Reviews

Full disclosure: I'm not just any old audience member for this picture. I've also worked on a Villisca-related project, co-writing, directing and appearing in one entitled "Haunting Villisca." Ours was far rougher than this one, from a production standpoint (I suspect we had a small fraction of this one's budget) and, sadly, we did no better with reviewers.

My own reaction to this one is. . .frustration and bewilderment. I don't care for the picture but I wouldn't, regardless of whether or not I myself had made one. It's lodged very uncomfortably in a very small space: true crime meets paranormal activity meets teen slasher flick. Finding the intersection of those circles is going to be dicey work indeed and, having attempted something like it, we may have to admit that it cannot be done at all.

The picture isn't all bad - some elements are exceedingly well-done - but the more important point, to me, is that the case has not attracted and given rise to the sort of high-achieving work we who are familiar with it believe could be produced.

What's the problem? I wish I knew. I've often described the case as an itch between the shoulder blades, the itch that takes up residence in that one insanely inaccessible spot. You feel you'll go mad if you can't somehow deal with it. So you write a book, you write a song, you make a movie. They're all undertaken with the best of intentions, and they all fall short (Roy Marshall's book, "Villisca," comes the closest to fullness, combining a law officer's obsession over evidence with a folksy charm that lifts the endeavor onto a higher plane, one approaching "art.")

No, I don't like this movie very much. Then again, I don't like ANY of them - my own included - very much. The dragon of history sleeps soundly still; he's not been prodded sufficiently into yielding up his treasure. Someday, perhaps.

This film marks a significant step forward in the development of Bryan Woods and Scott Beck who, together, make up the Bluebox Limited film-making endeavor.

In this film, Woods (screenwriter and director) and Beck (producer) are able to wed their fine-tuned sense of low-budget production value to sound storytelling. The worst that can be said of it is that, very occasionally, scenes and sequences are allowed to run past their optimum length; most of the time, however, the screenplay is smart, compelling, surprising and satisfying.

The picture also features strong, inventive acting from a young cast.

. . .Best Picture: "A Prairie Home Companion." The most fun to be had at the movies in ages.

Best Director: Robert Altman. His style has never been so self-assured or invisible.

Best Screenplay: Garrison Keillor. Think Charlie Kaufman with all the audacity, twice the charm, none of the neurosis, and enough wit to poke fun at his own half-cracked self-consciousness. Wonderful.

Best Actor: Shared award - Garrison Keillor and Kevin Kline.

Best Supporting Actor: Every other male in "A Prairie Home Companion."

Best Actress (with gun to my head): Meryl Streep.

Best Actress in the event Streep drops dead in the next few months and so can't attend the ceremony: Lily Tomlin.

Best Supporting Actress: Every other female in "A Prairie Home Companion."

All other awards: "A Prairie Home Companion."

Game called on account of unparalleled craft. Ten-run rule. Everyone else can go home.

Thanks.

Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.

Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.

Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever "social ill" Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling "Iowa" "important." But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.

The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, "What happened?" It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work.

Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.

This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of "American Idol," perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film.

What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination.

Huh. I read a couple of negative reviews here, and had no idea I was supposed to have had such a terrible time at this picture. Well, call me thickheaded, but I quite liked it. Uniformly strong performances, generally smart writing (an occasional clinking line, quickly forgiven by virtue of the aforementioned performances), and Jennifer Aniston deepens with every role she takes on. I agree that it's a film more about an idea than a story; but when the ideas are this interesting and effectively articulated, why not just enjoy the ride? Catherine Keener is terrific, as always, and if Frances McDormand has to carry the screenplay's least effective writing, it's still worth hearing. Joan Cusack also does fine work.

I am still shocked and angry that this film was ignored by the Academy. It works with a precision and daring that are virtually nonexistent these days, lost as they are to sloppy filmmakers who justify any number of moronic choices in the interest of "keepin' it real," or some such nonsense. This film has been created with exceeding care and astonishing craft, and the strongest evidence of this is the difficulty in choosing any one area as superior. Everything is in balance, everything works. This is a gift to the world of fantasy films; or, if you prefer, simply a gift to the world. As good as "Moulin Rouge" was - and it was - this was Nicole Kidman's best performance. Bravo.